 |
|
|
|
The Internet is the greatest communications phenomenon since the introduction of television. Unlike TV however, it is a supremely democratic and cheap medium that provides for both narrowcast and broadcast possibilities. Consider that, although we�ve modeled ourselves on the monthly art magazines, Abstract Art Online would never make it as a hard copy publication. A tightly focused publication like ours with no advertising revenues (actually no revenues, period) is only possible because of the way the Internet was conceived and structured. And this is equally true of thousands and thousands of other sites catering to small audiences like ours on a wide variety of topics and subject matter. Within the art world this runs the gamut from individual artists seeking greater exposure to galleries and museums desiring a web presence and on to new online as well as traditional auction houses looking to sell art over the net. |
|
|
Major corporations have their grubby mitts into the web too with the familiar all-American obsession of making piles of money from it (its amazing how money-mad our entire culture is; the first question nine out of ten people will ask us is how we expect to make money from Abartonline.com). It remains to be seen whether the relentless pursuit of commerce will prove the ruin for the comprehensive potential of the Internet as happened with television. For now it is interesting to note that everyone with a web presence has the equal potential for wide- ranged exposure W.W.W. is the World Wide Web, after all. The major difference between the big and small players is getting the word out, in short: the traditional cost of advertising. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For everyone interested in art the popularity of the Web poses a challenge to galleries and museums. Why visit these institutions when you can sit in the comfort of your home and just surf and sift through it all? It is a rather seductive notion when considering the ease of access, quality of content and availability. Even so, there is a compelling argument to be made for the traditional non-virtual spaces in which to view art. |
|
|
|
Visual art, understood as paintings, prints, works on paper and sculpture, is meant to be viewed as opposed to being read about or represented by facsimile. The distinction is crucial because visual art does not fully reveal itself without the direct involvement and physical presence of the viewer. Hence we are brought to the necessity of galleries and museums as special environments required to correctly view art. More to the point, these are public spaces through which one may wander at a (usually) self-determined, uninhibited pace. Though the objects themselves may be offered for sale (in commercial galleries) the aesthetic experiences they provide cannot be bought, sold or ever truly owned, and so are mostly free* to the viewer. |
|
|
|
Comparison is a key component to enriching the viewing experience. It is possible to compare artwork online or in a catalogue but nowhere near the same experience as wandering through a exhibition of the actual work. Say, for instance, you take in a show of paintings that you especially like; perhaps your first exposure to them was online. One in particular catches your eye and holds your gaze for a long time. You begin an internal visual |
|
|
|
Next Page |
|
|
|